"The Real World" vs "School"...what I've learned...


  • BINNED

    We agree. I'm just saying that's the most likely the next card that's going to be thrown in this discussion.

    Me, I'm just a stupid Euro from an ex-socialist country where we kept what we deemed are the good bits, while still switching into full capitalism-loving mode. My opinion and experiences are, as such, irrelevant, apparently, so I'm staying out of it.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    Nearly every model has some element of socialism. In the US, the low-level infrastructure stuff is handled the same way it is in a socialist country, except at a much more local level.

    There's a big difference between the government providing actual public goods like roads and non-public goods like education.

    @Jaime said:

    The result will be all of the poor people in public school funded only by poor people - which will lead to a never ending cycle of poverty that creates despondence and crime.

    Or we could just keep throwing money at the schools we have to maintain our current cycle of poverty that creates despondence and crime.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Or we could just keep throwing money at the schools we have to maintain our current cycle of poverty that creates despondence and crime.

    I'm all for ideas for improving schools. However school vouchers would do nothing but give them less money and increase the density of children without active parents. I'm positive that doing only that won't make them better.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    However school vouchers would do nothing but give them less money and increase the density of children without active parents.

    I don't think that's true. Many would stay where they are out of inertia or apathy or whatever. And enough schools to empty out the public schools wouldn't materialize instantly. They might, however, give the sclerotic school systems we already have a reason to care.

    Not that there's some sort of silver bullet. Just a way that we could shake things up, not to mention help some kids immediately. Obama and the Dems in Congress killing the DC voucher program was the clearest signal you could ask for that they care more about the unions than the kids.



  • @boomzilla said:

    that they care more about the unions than the kids.

    Unions vote and give campaign money, children don't - and poor parents certainly don't do the latter.



  • @boomzilla said:

    They might, however, give the sclerotic school systems we already have a reason to care.

    No it won't. The worst school systems are simply a machine to create jobs. They'll just hum along babysitting the kids whose parents can't afford the difference between the voucher value and a decent school. If you want to fix the problem, address the problem, don't threaten to take part of their money away. The unions will make damn sure the lost money comes out of the kids' hides, not the staff.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    If you want to fix the problem, address the problem, don't threaten to take part of their money away.

    It does address the problem. It gives parents options.



  • Letting those with means run away from the problem leaving a large crater behind them isn't addressing the problem. Parents are already free to send their child to the private school of their choice. What you are proposing is de-funding the public education system, yet still requiring many to attend it.

    Of course it looks like a solution to those who leave it behind. This is just a mirror of the "separate but equal" argument from the fifties, just with class instead of race.

    The current system of funding a school with only the taxes of the residents that that school serves has already created a divide so deep that a house being in the wrong school district can easily halve its value. Vouchers would allow a house-by-house selection of which taxes fund a school district, guaranteeing that poor people will never have access to a quality education, even if someone gives them a house in a good district.

    Summary of situation: "I got mine, what's the problem?"


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Jaime said:

    This is just a mirror of the "separate but equal" argument from the fifties, just with class instead of race.

    Ridiculous, unless you're going to make the charge that only some people are going to be allowed to have vouchers!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Jaime said:

    Summary of situation: "I got mine, what's the problem?"

    That sums up a lot of the problem that a lot of people have with some parts of politics right now, the assumption among some that that is a solution at all. The solution isn't to flip it on its head to “I got yours, what's the problem?” but rather to go towards more of “We have a problem; how do we fix it for everyone?” It's the lack of thinking about the benefit of everyone and how to get everyone involved in working for the common benefit that irritates so much. (I'm generally happy with having “run an honest business” as being a big component of the solution, where appropriate. I just don't require it to be the full solution: what works best for the overall problem?)

    So… we've got an election coming up here. Do I go for the assholes I don't like at all or the assholes I really despise? Or one of the group of idiots who seem to have no clue whatsoever?


  • BINNED

    @dkf said:

    So… we've got an election coming up here. Do I go for the assholes I don't like at all or the assholes I really despise? Or one of the group of idiots who seem to have no clue whatsoever?

    I say go for the most incompetent ones: hopefully they are incompetent enough to fail at everything equally and as a result they don't manage to fuck anything up.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Onyx said:

    I say go for the most incompetent ones

    What, the Green party?


  • BINNED

    I don't know! Use your own judgement. I don't have enough fucks to give about all the local parties, you expect me to know about foreign ones as well?


    Filed under: On a more serious note, I think we have a Green party here... Had? Maybe?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Onyx said:

    Use your own judgement.

    😱



  • @FrostCat said:

    Ridiculous, unless you're going to make the charge that only some people are going to be allowed to have vouchers!
    Unless you're going to tell 8 year olds to go get a job, "can't attend the good schools because my parents don't have the money" (even without getting into how reasonable or unreasonable it is from the parent's perspective) and "can't attend the good schools because racist rules prohibit it" is pretty much a distinction without a difference to the person most affected.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    What you are proposing is de-funding the public education system, yet still requiring many to attend it.

    No, I am not proposing that. For instance, in DC, the public schools got more money when the vouchers were in existence.

    @Jaime said:

    This is just a mirror of the "separate but equal" argument from the fifties, just with class instead of race.

    No. Just no.

    I'm just not caught up in looking for a perfect solution when there are some incremental things that can do immediate good right now and that start changing some of the incentives in the system in an attempt to realign some of the people who are currently the problem.

    @Jaime said:

    Summary of situation: "I got mine, what's the problem?"

    A situation which you seem happy to continue.



  • @dkf said:

    What, the Green party?

    The Green Party did promise everyone sunshine, roses, ponies and that they'd pay for it with unicorn farts, so why not?


  • BINNED

    I don't like ponies. Get a real horse, you hippie!



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Referencing Orwell outside of literary context is the first symptom of paranoia.

    Because his context was extrapolating a progression of America into political insanity? Or that his was an example of how every political system, when brought to the extreme, looks like every other.



  • @xaade said:

    Because his context was extrapolating a progression of America into political insanity?

    What would Orwell care about America?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    What would Orwell care about America

    Why do you think he's irrelevant outside a literary context?



  • @Jaime said:

    That's how taxes work.

    I'm not saying that taxes shouldn't work that way. I'm saying that when you force people to pay for other people's way, you force them to participate. When you do that, you shouldn't also shut down their ability to have an impact on the system. You can't have someone like Hillary saying that "education is an enterprise", basically telling parents that they should have no control over how their children are taught.

    @Jaime said:

    makes more than the average income of their community will take that money and put it in a private school

    No, that's how it works now. Those people also pay taxes in a use-it-or-lose-it scheme. With the price of daycare, I'm already at the point where paying for private school would only be a small increase in cost.

    @Jaime said:

    The result will be all of the poor people in public school funded only by poor people

    There are far more people paying for education that don't have a kid to put into any school. I will only have a kid for 18-25 years (depending on how many I have, because the average middle class household has 2 kids). I will be paying taxes for 40+ years, and the largest amount of taxes I will pay will be near retirement, if all goes well.

    Giving me vouchers will hardly take all the money away from the poor.

    The vouchers would be a per kid amount. So the school should still have the same per capita funding. At most it would mean the closing of schools equal to amount of kids leaving those schools for private schools.

    The idea would be to have public school compete with private school for money. That's still possible, because public school would still be cheaper than private. But of course, the government hasn't ever been able to compete with private comparable services, because government, not because of funding or any other reason. They're idea to earn more money on school lunches is to implement policies to take away the food kids are bringing to school. Yeah, that's what all the food shaming is about, earning more on lunch programs.

    The reason for me to put my kids in private, isn't for better education opportunities, but because I want school to focus on education, and not perform social experiments.



  • @Jaime said:

    What you are proposing is de-funding the public education system, yet still requiring many to attend it.

    The alternative being funding the school system, allowing politicians to perform social experiments, and requiring everyone to attend it.

    @Jaime said:

    guaranteeing that poor people will never have access to a quality education

    People just aren't responsible for improving their own lives. Everyone just needs the glorious government to rescue them.

    Should I count the stories of rich people that went from rich, to poor, to rich again within a year's span?

    Look, I'm all for scaling the vouchers so poor people get a bigger cut.

    And if schools stopped all the miscellaneous crap they do that doesn't amount to teaching a skill, then I would have no problem with public schools.



  • @dkf said:

    “I got yours, what's the problem?” but rather to go towards more of “We have a problem; how do we fix it for everyone?” It's the lack of thinking about the benefit of everyone and how to get everyone involved in working for the common benefit that irritates so much.

    You can't. that's the point.

    You can only fix the problem for the people who are willing to be...

    @dkf said:

    working for the common benefit

    We have too many people who are unwilling to participate that we can only make life 'so much more better'. You can't expect to be able to make life equally better for these people.

    Any system I would come up with, would have unwilling participants starving with their kids taken away, so that we could use that money to give opportunities to willing participants and actually offer a life of self-sustenance.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Why do you think he's irrelevant outside a literary context?

    Things have changed a little since Orwell wrote 1984. Certainly in countries in which people are fond of using the comparison.

    Thinking that US of 2015 is just as bad with respect to government control as USSR of late 40s is just paranoia. You wouldn't even be able to make that comparison if it were so.

    As such, 1984 is about as relevant outside of literary - and perhaps historical - context as medieval morality plays.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Thinking that US of 2015 is just as bad with respect to government control as USSR of late 40s is just paranoia. You wouldn't even be able to make that comparison if it were so.

    I don't think anyone is thinking that.

    But we do see hints of that progression.

    The argument the book makes is that progression towards that level of control doesn't have to be a "bang in the night" turnover like USSR. It can be a slow process that you don't notice happening.

    The book warrants a person stay aware of the change around them.

    Yes, conspiracy theorists can take that and run with it, but that isn't indicative of anything. When have they needed any help?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    As such, 1984 is about as relevant outside of literary - and perhaps historical - context as medieval morality plays.

    That's ludicrous. I'm not trying to make an argument that nothing has changed since the 40s, but to say that Orwell is irrelevant because some things are different is just as silly. Consider, for instance, CCTV in the UK and NSA surveillance of...everyone. And those are just the obvious parallels.

    When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts … Germany lost the Second World War. Fascism won it. Believe me, my friend.

    -- George Carlin



  • I'll start worrying when you start building gulags.

    Look, you might have some areas of your life monitored, but that's about it. You're not getting jailed for making fun of Obama. You're not sent to dig rocks with your family for the rest of your life for criticizing democracy. You're not tracked on the streets by sad men in coats, you don't have to be constantly wary whether one of your friends is going to denounce you to the KGB. And that's not even exaggerated, and Orwell was exaggerating by a lot for obvious reasons.

    Sure, US might have the ability to do so if they so wish one day, but it's the kind of logic that makes every man a potential rapist.



  • @xaade said:

    There are far more people paying for education that don't have a kid to put into any school.

    Paying for school shouldn't work like that. It's a societal service, not a tuition-based event. People without cars pay for road construction, people who don't go to church partially finance religion with tax breaks, people who don't go to parks pay for their maintenance.

    The best places to live in the world are generally the same places where education is universally available. Places like Finland pay for their citizen's education all the way through university. It doesn't cost that much and has a billion benefits. Most importantly, your brightest people get to reach their potential, regardless of where they started.

    @xaade said:

    The reason for me to put my kids in private, isn't for better education opportunities, but because I want school to focus on education, and not perform social experiments.

    Your complaints about the education system in the US are valid. But, you are trying to make them not exist by shifting their funding rather than addressing the problem. Unfortunately, a voucher-based competitive market of schools won't perform as well as decently-run public education. Sweden has been doing it for the past 25 years and their educational outcomes have slipped compared to the rest of the world as a result.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    And that's not even exaggerated, and Orwell was exaggerating by a lot for obvious reasons.

    So what? Your assertion that Orwell is irrelevant isn't being backed up.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    You're not getting jailed for making fun of Obama.

    But many of his political opponents were attacked by the IRS.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Sure, US might have the ability to do so if they so wish one day, but it's the kind of logic that makes every man a potential rapist.

    Funny you should bring that up, given what's been going on WRT Title IX and the so-called college rape epidemic. I think you may have a very narrow vision of the things 1984 covered. Or you have some sort of blakey-like syndrome where you misunderstand metaphorical language.



  • Do you think competing with FedEx and UPS has made the US Postal Service worse? Show your work.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Do you think competing with FedEx and UPS has made the US Postal Service worse? Show your work.

    Do you think vouchers made Sweden's education system better? Show your work.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    It's a societal service, not a tuition-based event.

    It's a service provided to individuals, not a public good.

    @Jaime said:

    The best places to live in the world are generally the same places where education is universally available. Places like Finland pay for their citizen's education all the way through university

    Now, take what you wrote and imagine if there were vouchers paid via taxes made available to kids but the vouchers went to private schools instead of public schools. Your'e making @xaade's point for him!



  • If Carlin believed that, he's an idiot.



  • I care not for Sweden. The US is full of entrepreneurs.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    Do you think vouchers made Sweden's education system better? Show your work.

    What about their changing demographics? I understand they've been becoming a lot more diverse over the last few decades. Still nowhere near the US.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Now, take what you wrote and imagine if there were vouchers paid via taxes made available to kids but the vouchers went to private schools instead of public schools. Your'e making @xaade's point for him!

    Except for the Sweden example I provided that shows some evidence that the benefit you think it will provide will not happen.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @blakeyrat said:

    If Carlin believed that, he's an idiot.

    I disagree with a lot of what Carlin said (though jokes are jokes) but there's a lot of truth in that statement.

    @Jaime said:

    Except for the Sweden example I provided that shows some evidence that the benefit you think it will provide will not happen.

    So if a kid manages to go to a better school, he'll still get a worse education?



  • @boomzilla said:

    What about their changing demographics? I understand they've been becoming a lot more diverse over the last few decades. Still nowhere near the US.

    OK, so you have some evidence that Sweden's decline may not have been due solely to their voucher system. That's a far cry from even refuting the point, let alone evidence for the effectiveness of vouchers.

    We aren't the first ones to think of this - and there are no large scale success stories to point to.

    If the US ends up with a free-market education system, the church groups will quickly dominate the landscape. They have a ton of money to throw around and they see education as one of the places where it is appropriate to spend. The Supreme Court has already decided that using voucher money for a religious school is allowed. Before long, you will have a choice - learn under a religious doctrine or go to a privately run school that is most likely run by the crackpot-of-the-month with an educational experiment to run, or by a failed businessman trying to qualify for government funding. There is already a parallel for it in post-secondary education. Devry, ITT Tech, and Bryant & Stratton are all poor schools that chase funding instead of delivering quality.



  • @boomzilla said:

    So if a kid manages to go to a better school, he'll still get a worse education?

    A kid - yes. The all of kids in a country - the available data says no. If some do better and the average goes down, then the only conclusion to make is that the ones that do worse either outnumber the ones that do better, or they decline more than the improvers improve.


  • BINNED

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Things have changed a little since Orwell wrote 1984.

    Yes it has. Someone provided us with proof that the NSA already had the spying part covered pretty well.


  • BINNED

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    You're not getting jailed for making fun of Obama.

    You might get your ass on a no fly list for no obvious reasons.



  • @boomzilla said:

    So what? Your assertion that Orwell is irrelevant isn't being backed up.

    My point is, the parallels between what 1984 related to and today's US are stretchy as fuck.

    @boomzilla said:

    But many of his political opponents were attacked by the IRS.

    I've read on the case a bit - really, that's the best instrument of thwarting the opposition you've got? Withholding tax exemptions? Look, politics is a dirty job, we get it, but there's still lightyears between nationwide oppression and playing dirty with opponents.

    The sole fact that you're allowed to read about the case in question already puts you way ahead.

    @boomzilla said:

    Title IX

    I don't see the relevancy. It's a somewhat shitty parity-establishing act, as most of them are. What's it got to do with 1984?

    @boomzilla said:

    the so-called college rape epidemic

    Or that, especially since nothing except for a couple of heated articles from both sides came out of it?

    @boomzilla said:

    I think you may have a very narrow vision of the things 1984 covered.

    I think your vision of the things 1984 covered includes whatever you want it to include.



  • They still need a GED to get a job; a diploma without meeting State standards is useless. If your objection to religious school is they teach crackpot science, well, campaign to get more science on the GED exam.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If your objection to religious school is they teach crackpot science

    My objection is that millions of children will have to listen a specific religious doctrine in order to go to the best school. Most of the current ones do a good job teaching science, with a few very public exceptions.



  • Huh? How does that follow?

    You are drawing connections here out of thin air. Why would the best schools be religious? Why do you think parents would send their kids to schools that don't agree with their particular religion?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Jaime said:

    We aren't the first ones to think of this - and there are no large scale success stories to point to.

    Yes, it's a problem to which no one knows a great solution. But it will help some people immediately.

    @Jaime said:

    If the US ends up with a free-market education system, the church groups will quickly dominate the landscape.

    Could be. Catholic schools seem to do an excellent job at a pretty good price.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    My point is, the parallels between what 1984 related to and today's US are stretchy as fuck.

    Fine. You can be wrong.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    The sole fact that you're allowed to read about the case in question already puts you way ahead.

    Stop being so stupidly literal.

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Or that, especially since nothing except for a couple of heated articles from both sides came out of it?

    All of what you're saying is just pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about. Which isn't bad, except that you're making categorical statements instead of asking.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Stop being so stupidly literal

    So that you can move the goalposts wherever you need them to be?

    Jesus. You're like these guys who pop up after every major event and claim Nostradamus had it all figured out,you just need to read into it deeper.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Jesus. You're like these guys who pop up after every major event and claim Nostradamus had it all figured out,you just need to read into it deeper.

    What the fuck? You're saying that the US isn't exactly like 1984 so it's irrelevant. It doesn't take some postmodern deconstructionism bullshit to see that your analysis is wrong.


Log in to reply